Disabled scooter user humiliated by Train Manager for using disabled space on GWR service.

[Llanigraham]

The judgement in Doug Paulley v FirstGroup is a good starting point.

Fine, that is in Court, and not what I asked.
How are you going to enforce it "on the ground"? You know, when dealing with REAL people at a station?

 

[bnm]

I can’t agree with you here.

The guidance does not change the underlying law, which (the guidance itself states) remains silent on mobility scooters and does not absolutely require that they be accommodated. Albeit from a common sense perspective there is little practical difference between a scooter and a wheelchair in many situations.

It is right (and lawful) that TOCs should be able to distinguish between between mobility scooters and wheelchairs - for example to prevent the situation where a mobility scooter user refused to fold it thereby preventing a wheelchair passenger from boarding.

With the DfT and ORR interpreting the underlying legislation (Equality Act 2010) to not distinguish between mobility scooters and wheelchairs, I presume (dangerous, I know!) they had sought legal advice. If they haven't then yes, until such time as legal action is taken, there is a grey area. Should legal action be taken on this point I would hope a judge would rule that a mobility scooter meeting reference dimensions, and used by someone with protected characteristics, has unfettered access to spaces on public transport reserved for the disabled. I can easily imagine a light-hearted moment in court when a barrister or judge says, "this scooter has wheels and a chair..."

I don't think it is acceptable to continue with a two tier policy where the right to occupy a disabled space is governed by the type of wheeled mobility aid a disabled person uses. If the mobility aid meets reference dimensions and its user has protected characteristics then that's all that should be required to legally occupy spaces set aside for the disabled on public transport.

It should be remembered that some wheelchair users are also able to ambulate to a limited degree. Because they can transfer to a seat on public transport does that mean they should fold down and stow their mobility aid? We can't have disability laws and regulations which require service providers and their staff to make judgement calls on the severity of someone's protected characteristics.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think it is acceptable to continue with a two tier policy where the right to occupy a disabled space is governed by the type of wheeled mobility aid a disabled person uses. If the mobility aid meets reference dimensions and its user has protected characteristics then that's all that should be required to legally occupy spaces set aside for the disabled on public transport.

There will be some cases where it does matter - one of GWR's specifications for scooters is an anti tip device - it sounds like some of them are not safe in a moving vehicle if occupied.

 

[jessica33]

This is one of those cases where the company are not the ones that should be blamed.

I say that as it's clearly a train manager who is particularly stupid. Sometimes companies/organisations can't account for sheer ignorance, lack of judgement and lack of common sense.

It's the same when a council worker clamps a car that's been in an accident or something.

Of course I do accept that maybe GWR should now roll out awareness training.

But seriously, I'd expect any guard with ZERO training to handle this better and to identify the priority or a satisfactory resolution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd expect anyone anywhere to know that making an announcement like that was an incredibly stupid idea, regardless of any of the rest of it.

 

[jessica33]

I'd expect anyone anywhere to know that making an announcement like that was an incredibly stupid idea, regardless of any of the rest of it.

Yep exactly.

No training could have prevented someone clearly so stupid, cruel and inhumane doing that.

 

[bnm]

But remember what that case is actually dealing with. It’s considering at what point a travel company (a bus company in this case) can be said to have discharged its duty under disability discrimination legislation. That point appears to be asking people to move from a disabled area and then taking further action (if reasonable), such as delaying a service, but stops short of compelling people to leave if they refuse.

That’s separate from the question of whether there’s any offence committed by people refusing to move from a disabled area. That case doesn’t make their selfish actions illegal per se (although liability might arise elsewhere, such as under railway bylaws, as per your earlier link).

My citing of Doug Paulley v FirstGroup was in response to another poster asking how do you enforce a 'rule' requiring able bodied to vacate a disabled space if it's needed by a disabled person. We have the 'rule' which is railway byelaw 13, and we have a Supreme Court judgement on the steps transport providers and their staff should take to compel an intransigent able bodied person to move.

And I did say that Doug Paulley v FirstGroup is but a starting point... It is difficult to legislate the selfishness and bloody mindedness out of some. A few prosecutions would go a long way to changing attitudes.

 

[bnm]

There will be some cases where it does matter - one of GWR's specifications for scooters is an anti tip device - it sounds like some of them are not safe in a moving vehicle if occupied.

Yet there's no such requirement that classic shape wheelchairs have anti-tip devices. I know from my time refurbishing NHS wheelchairs how easy it is for them to tip backward. In our lunch break we used to muck about in the wheelchairs. Wheelies were easy to perform, but get it wrong and you are in A&E, concussed and getting stitches in a wound on the back of your head. Yep. That was me!

 

[bramling]

Many are. I totally agree. And it doesn't help when their actions are backed up by people in authority and by others defending the actions of said authority figure.

Ultimately there is legal recourse. Doug Paulley used it. Others may well in future. And if that means prosecuting a few able-bodied self entitled then I'm all for it.

The problem is that in real life you can have as much legal recourse as you like, but in reality unless the law (i.e. the BTP) are readily and immediately available then it’s as much use as an electric lamp in a power cut. Bear in mind one is likely on a moving train, BTP coverage is patchy, the matter won’t be a police priority, and you don’t want to delay the train.

So in reality it’s left to the guard to do their best to try to resolve the situation. Which is exactly what this guard seems to have done, if (debatably) he was a little clumsy going about it.

 

[Bromley boy]

With the DfT and ORR interpreting the underlying legislation (Equality Act 2010) to not distinguish between mobility scooters and wheelchairs, I presume (dangerous, I know!) they had sought legal advice.

Indeed.

In the absence of any relevant case law the advice might well have simply been that the position is unclear.

There are probably good policy reasons for allowing TOCs to distinguish between wheelchairs and scooters, some of which can be folded and some of which are equivalent of wheelchairs, @Bletchleyite alludes to this above.

My citing of Doug Paulley v FirstGroup was in response to another poster asking how do you enforce a 'rule' requiring able bodied to vacate a disabled space if it's needed by a disabled person. We have the 'rule' which is railway byelaw 13, and we have a Supreme Court judgement on the steps transport providers and their staff should take to compel an intransigent able bodied person to move.

The case itself makes it clear that there was no statutory obligation on the passengers to move. The (only) question looked at was the steps required to be taken in order for the transport operator to have discharged its responsibilities (again in terms of “reasonbleness”.).

For example it would be unlikely to be reasonable to delay a train in the high peak at Clapham Junction due to the impact on literally tens of thousands of other passengers.

The railway by-law point is interesting and seems untested (it might be worth starting a thread on the disputes/prosecutions forum: @yorkie and others might be able to shed more light). Again I suspect it will always back to a question of practical enforceability, whatever the letter of the law is.

The trains I drive are DOO and there is simply no staff member on board to instruct passengers to leave a wheelchair space (some wheelchair users are able to board without assistance so may not be accompanied by platform staff)

 

[bnm]

So in reality it’s left to the guard to do their best to try to resolve the situation. Which is exactly what this guard seems to have done, if (debatably) he was a little clumsy going about it.

Not just clumsy. He threatened police attendance, ejection, and then publicly humiliated Tanyalee Davis.

I'll concede he tried. He got it very wrong though.

 

[bramling]

Not just clumsy. He threatened police attendance, ejection, and then publicly humiliated Tanyalee Davis.

I'll concede he tried. He got it very wrong though.

As I say, that’s debatable. We don’t know what happened before the filming started, and in the film there’s more than a little evidence of bad attitude from the pair in question.

 

[bnm]

Indeed.

In the absence of any relevant case law the advice might well have simply been that the position is unclear.

There are probably good policy reasons for allowing TOCs to distinguish between wheelchairs and scooters, some of which can be folded and some of which are equivalent of wheelchairs, @Bletchleyite alludes to this above.



The case itself makes it clear that there was no statutory obligation on the passengers to move. The (only) question looked at was the steps required to be taken in order for the transport operator to have discharged its responsibilities (again in terms of “reasonbleness”.).

For example it would be unlikely to be reasonable to delay a train in the high peak at Clapham Junction due to the impact on literally tens of thousands of other passengers.

The railway by-law point is interesting and seems untested (it might be worth starting a thread on the disputes/prosecutions forum: @yorkie and others might be able to shed more light). Again I suspect it will always back to a question of practical enforceability, whatever the letter of the law is.

The trains I drive are DOO and there is simply no staff member on board to instruct passengers to leave a wheelchair space (some wheelchair users are able to board without assistance so may not be accompanied by platform staff)

A few railway byelaw prosecutions, allied to a publicity campaign can work wonders.

However, the fact there aren't details out there of byelaw 13 prosecutions shouldn't automatically mean its not happening due to 'practical enforceability' problems. The more likely explanation is that the vast majority of the travelling public will comply with a request to move. I've done so on a full and standing CrossCountry train. There was some shuffling, moving of luggage and musical chairs, but we soon had the disabled person in the space that is legally theirs to occupy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet there's no such requirement that classic shape wheelchairs have anti-tip devices. I know from my time refurbishing NHS wheelchairs how easy it is for them to tip backward. In our lunch break we used to muck about in the wheelchairs. Wheelies were easy to perform, but get it wrong and you are in A&E, concussed and getting stitches in a wound on the back of your head. Yep. That was me!

True, but I think the issue with scooters is possible tipping sideways?

 

[Bromley boy]

Not just clumsy. He threatened police attendance, ejection, and then publicly humiliated Tanyalee Davis.

I'll concede he tried. He got it very wrong though.

I think that was because he objected to the filming and being sworn at by the bloke behind the camera phone.

The announcement (badly judged I concede) was also about the fact they were filming him and threatening to post online, from what I could hear of it.

 

[bnm]

As I say, that’s debatable. We don’t know what happened before the filming started, and in the film there’s more than a little evidence of bad attitude from the pair in question.

Oh I see. We're still trotting out the 'attitude test' argument are we. Are you all sweetness and light when an authority figure denies you your legal rights?

If this mythical test has been failed then surely GWR are wrong to so swiftly and unequivocally apologise to Tanyalee Davis. Going far further than a more usual cut and paste Customer Services response. They immediately reached out to the attitude test failers. Today GWR senior managers met them. And they have again stated to the media, on camera this time, that their employee got it wrong.

I have some experience of dealing with GWR when my right to travel was regularly being impinged. When detailing my experiences on this forum I too was accused of failing this mythical attitude test. It is a line trotted out regularly by those defending the indefensible. There is a world of difference between having an attitude problem and firmly and forthrightly stating your position, challenging those with some power (and those who think they have some - hello Paddington gateline!) who are in the wrong. Standing your ground, not kowtowing, not tugging ones forelock are not attitude failings.

Sadly, I didn't get a personal meeting with a GWR senior manager until I'd been denied travel on half a dozen or so occasions. I didn't actually have the meeting until a TM had called BTP on me wrongly accusing me of fare evasion.

But I digress. Every time (and I mean EVERY), there is a topic on this forum which details an interaction between a fare paying passenger and a member of rail staff who have had a difference of opinion, there are forum members who will state categorically that the passenger failed the attitude test. Its rarely the rail staff member who's attitude is questioned. And by crikey I've experienced some interesting attitudes. Only a few mind. The vast majority of rail staff do a sterling job, day in day out.

Could us passengers have details of this attitude test please? It would help us stop failing it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could us passengers have details of this attitude test please? It would help us stop failing it.

Don't shout, don't swear, don't use aggressive body language that may indicate a physical threat. That's basically it.

 

[Bromley boy]

Could us passengers have details of this attitude test please? It would help us stop failing it.

If you film a member of staff, threaten to post the video online and swear at them, you’ve failed it !!!

EDIT: for balance I think we have all said the guard’s announcement was misjudged and that he was wrong to ask for the scooter to be moved.

What many object to is the immediate statements that the person should be sacked etc. which are unduly harsh in this case.

 

[bnm]

I think that was because he objected to the filming and being sworn at by the bloke behind the camera phone.

The announcement (badly judged I concede) was also about the fact they were filming him and threatening to post online, from what I could hear of it.

Of course, had the TM told the Mum she couldn't use the disabled space, had he not compelled a disabled person to move their mobility aid from the space, then there would have been no need for Tanyalee Davis' husband to gather evidence and to challenge what he was doing. One use of the word "bull****" to describe the situation (which wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, threatening behaviour) is surely understandable in the circumstances. Had the TM not got it so spectacularly wrong he wouldn't now be all over social media, press and TV. Sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for him.

 

[bnm]

If you film a member of staff, threaten to post the video online and swear at them, you’ve failed it !!!

And equally for balance. If you threaten arrest, ejection and humiliate a disabled customer standing up for their rights then you've also failed it!!

Whatever it is.

 

[bnm]

Don't shout, don't swear, don't use aggressive body language that may indicate a physical threat. That's basically it.

Ah, so this test is don't break railway byelaws and section 5 of the Public Order Act? That's fair enough.

I don't see Tanyalee Davis and her husband being prosecuted.

 

[pompeyfan]

Ah, so this test is don't break railway byelaws and section 5 of the Public Order Act? That's fair enough.

I don't see Tanyalee Davis and her husband being prosecuted.

Let’s play hindsight and let’s pretend you’re the guard in the situation. How would you have resolved it so that both passengers (Tanyalee and also the mother with baby) were happy?

For the record I agree the guard should have done better, but I’m not sure how (obviously not breaking the law would be a start!)

 

[Llanigraham]

Ah, so this test is don't break railway byelaws and section 5 of the Public Order Act? That's fair enough.

I don't see Tanyalee Davis and her husband being prosecuted.

The attitude test is nothing to do with railway byelaws, as well you know, and only partly to do with Sect 5 of the Public Order Act. It is a "test" used by countless individuals, official or otherwise, in dealing with recalcient and obstructive people. It is used by waiters in restaurants with stroppy customers, by nurses in AE against agressive patients, by Policemen in many situations, by shopkeepers, by level crossing keepers and funnily enough by Guards on the railway. If you really cannot understand what it is, and I suspect by some of your answers here, you don't want to, then you have probably been subject to it many times.

 

[bnm]

Let’s play hindsight and let’s pretend you’re the guard in the situation. How would you have resolved it so that both passengers were happy?

For the record I agree the guard should have done better, but I’m not sure how (obviously not breaking the law would be a start!)

Funny you should ask. I was considering asking the esteemed members of this forum just that.

Now, I have a working knowledge of the Equality Act so that would have been my starting point. I would have told the Mum that the other lady is disabled and she is allowed to have her mobility aid occupy that space. The seat next to the space is for a disabled person or their companion. In no circumstances is the space to be used for prams, pushchairs, other passengers' luggage. And the adjacent seat may only be occupied by an able bodied person if it is not required for a disabled person or their companion. Once that has been explained I would help mum find a space elsewhere on the train. (In the incident under discussion the TM is reported to have said there were seats available elsewhere. Tanyalee Davis has said in interview there were other seats free in 1st Class). I would also help mum with her pram, baby seat and other luggage. Once settled I would apologise to her (whether such an apology is justified or not) and empathise about the difficulties of traveling with a baby. Coupled to that I'd liaise with the catering staff and ensure refreshments are brought to her seat. Doing so myself if necessary. (It was a Sunday so no 1st Class host, just a buffet staffer)

Now if mum decided what I was proposing wasn't enough and she started filming me and saying she was going to put it on social media, and she was going to complain to my superiors, I would say that I don't have a problem with that, I've told you why you can't use that space and I've offered to help you find elsewhere to settle. If she continues I would then retreat saying I have other duties to attend to, apologising to other passengers as I go, in particular to Tanyalee Davis and her partner.

 

[farleigh]

Funny you should ask. I was considering asking the esteemed members of this forum just that.

Now, I have a working knowledge of the Equality Act so that would have been my starting point. I would have told the Mum that the other lady is disabled and she is allowed to have her mobility aid occupy that space. The seat next to the space is for a disabled person or their companion. In no circumstances is the space to be used for prams, pushchairs, other passengers' luggage. And the adjacent seat may only be occupied by an able bodied person if it is not required for a disabled person or their companion. Once that has been explained I would help mum find a space elsewhere on the train. (In the incident under discussion the TM is reported to have said there were seats available elsewhere. Tanyalee Davis has said in interview there were other seats free in 1st Class). I would also help mum with her pram, baby seat and other luggage. Once settled I would apologise to her (whether such an apology is justified or not) and empathise about the difficulties of traveling with a baby. Coupled to that I'd liaise with the catering staff and ensure refreshments are brought to her seat. Doing so myself if necessary. (It was a Sunday so no 1st Class host, just a buffet staffer)

Now if mum decided what I was proposing wasn't enough and she started filming me and saying she was going to put it on social media, and she was going to complain to my superiors, I would say that I don't have a problem with that, I've told you why you can't use that space and I've offered to help you find elsewhere to settle. If she continues I would then retreat saying I have other duties to attend to, apologising to other passengers as I go, in particular to Tanyalee Davis and her partner.

With the greatest respect it does seem much easier to deal with sat at home behind a keyboard. But it does sound like you would have had it all in hand.I wonder why the guard did not do what you said.

 

[bnm]

The attitude test is nothing to do with railway byelaws, as well you know, and only partly to do with Sect 5 of the Public Order Act. It is a "test" used by countless individuals, official or otherwise, in dealing with recalcient and obstructive people. It is used by waiters in restaurants with stroppy customers, by nurses in AE against agressive patients, by Policemen in many situations, by shopkeepers, by level crossing keepers and funnily enough by Guards on the railway. If you really cannot understand what it is, and I suspect by some of your answers here, you don't want to, then you have probably been subject to it many times.

We are discussing the interaction between the GWR TM and Tanyalee Davis and her husband.

I fully understand what people who attempt to defend the indefensible think it is. Its a line trotted out to denigrate the wronged party.

It's a line trotted out by folk who think that once a wronged party stands their ground and forthrightly disagrees with an authority figure, they lose all justification for their position.

I'll say again and in relation to this incident, there is a world of difference between having a bad attitude and standing your ground. Gathering evidence, expressing incredulity, raising your voice above background noise in a Mk3 vestibule with open windows, are not indicators of a bad attitude.

And on the specific accusation of 'shouting' in this incident. Tanyalee Davis' husband's voice is the loudest one on the videos posted online. Why would that be? Have a think about who's mouth was closest to microphone...

 

[bnm]

With the greatest respect it does seem much easier to deal with sat at home behind a keyboard. But it does sound like you would have had it all in hand.I wonder why the guard did not do what you said.

It is and it does.

But you did ask.

 

[farleigh]

It is and it does.

But you did ask.

But why do you think he did not do what you said? Do you think he is just a bad person?

 

[bnm]

But why do you think he did not do what you said? Do you think he is just a bad person?

I've no idea. I'm not being drawn into character analysis of the TM.* It's hard enough defending Tanyalee Davis.



*Save to re-state that in this case I believe he called it wrong. Meaning I have no sympathy for him or any sympathy should he face disciplinary action. Tanyalee Davis has said he should be reprimanded and there should be retraining. I respect that. Although if GWR decide his handling of the incident warrants stronger action, I'd respect that too.

 

[irish_rail]

Please can we stop tearing apart the TM! There are very real extenuating circumstances here which I am obviously not going to go into on a public forum but there are reasons he may have acted the way he did.
Frankly from what I hear this is a none story that has ridiculously become massively over hyped and in my view this thread should be locked and people need move on.